That blue line for raw temperature in his graph combines different records without any adjustment, even though Eschenbach could see that there was a step change between record 0 and record 1.

The adjustment procedure used is described here, with the the authors noting:

A great deal of effort went into the homogeneity adjustments. Yet the
effects of the homogeneity adjustments on global average temperature
trends are minor (Easterling and Peterson 1995b). However, on scales
of half a continent or smaller, the homogeneity adjustments can have
an impact. On an individual time series, the effects of the
adjustments can be enormous. These adjustments are the best we could
do given the paucity of historical station history metadata on a
global scale. But using an approach based on a reference series
created from surrounding stations means that the adjusted station’s
data is more indicative of regional climate change and less
representative of local microclimatic change than an individual
station not needing adjustments.

Eschenbach, however, simply declares the NOAA’s adjustments “blatantly bogus” that created a “false warming”. This isn’t a strong argument, but maybe there is a way to check the NOAA’s work?

A change in the type of thermometer shelter used at many Australian observation sites in the early 20th century resulted in a sudden drop in recorded temperatures which is entirely spurious. It is for this reason that these early data are currently not used for monitoring climate change. Other common changes at Australian sites over time include location moves, construction of buildings or growth of vegetation around the observation site and, more recently, the introduction of Automatic Weather Stations.

The impacts of these changes on the data are often comparable in size to real climate variations, so they need to be removed before long-term trends are investigated. Procedures to identify and adjust for non-climatic changes in historical climate data generally involve a combination of:

Comments

What isn’t mentioned in this article is that the data can be “homogenized” to give a downward as well as an upward trend – depending on what is used as a baseline. This is not spin – just simple statistics. “Homogenization” of data is patently unscientific (this is not allowed in hard science). Just because the airport increased in temperature – does not mean we should automatically adjust every other inhomogeneous data set to do the same. This is guessing – not science.

Truthfully, such poor non-homogeneous data should be thrown out – or included in such a large sampling of data that both upward and downward inhomegenaities statistically cancel. The size of this larger sample would be determined by the amount of error in the calculations. No “homogenization” allowed – to easily biased.

Using the exact same argument as above – the data could be homogenized to the cooler, not the hotter temp. The auther is merely showing their bias and hoodwinking all your non-statasticians.

Willis Eschenbach’s commentary remains more scientifically correct (no data manipulation). Although, as previously noted, a larger and homogeneous data set is needed to know what is really happening over a larger area with any certainty. Truthfully, we don’t have anything here more than poor measurements – and possibly some wishful thinking – by BOTH political camps.

No actual refutations of what has been shown to be wrong with Eschenbach’s post then, Mr “Physicist”? Just think you can come in, throw some assertions around and expect your “I’m an (anonymous) physicist, therefore I have final say on what is and isn’t science” line to impress everyone into submission.

Interesting that despite amusingly incompetent attempts to assert yourself as some kind of objective arbiter learning us all about science and statistics and other scary things, you can make a statement such as:

“Using the exact same argument as above – the data could be homogenized to the cooler, not the hotter temp. The auther is merely showing their bias and hoodwinking all your non-statasticians.”

I’m not an expert, and neither, despite your pretences, are you. The difference between us is that a) I’m upfront about my lack of expertise and b) I have enough humility to be willing to learn, and to be wrong. Also, I bother to read people’s posts.

I suggest you follow that example. I’d suggest it’s the grown-up thing to do.

That graph shows, for the US, the annual temps calculated using the raw data, and then overlain on it, the results of each successive adjustment to the data.

The total adjustment for the US causes an increase in trend over the 20th century of about 0.25 C / Century. Of that, about 0.2C is due entirely to correction for time of observation and or transitioning to MMTS sensors. These are necessary, well documented adjustments due to known changes in observing technique, and are not part of the homogenization itself.

The remaining 0.05C adjustment is from the homogenization – which is designed to statistically handle things like station moves and urban heat island encroachment. This means that the entire homogenization procedure applied to the entire US, leads to an increase in the trend of ~ 0.05C / century. Removing the homogenization step entirely, would cause a decrease in the trend for the US of 0.05C per freaking century. And you guys are up ini arms about how terribly misleading and unscientific and fraudulent this is? Get freaking real.

What isn’t mentioned in this article is that the data can be “homogenized” to give a downward as well as an upward trend – depending on what is used as a baseline. This is not spin – just simple statistics. “Homogenization” of data is patently unscientific

Baseline, of course, isn’t relevant for trend calculations.

Regarding homogenization being invalid …

Tell that to doctors who homogenize ass-measured temps to oral-measured temps, and explain to them that the fact that ass-temps are lower than oral temps disproves everything medicine knows about historical records, because, you know, any adjustment is “fraudulent” blah blah.

If anybody wants to see it, George Sherrington has found the historical metadata for Darwin. Keep in mind that the GHCN method does not use this information, but it is such changes that the method is trying to detect, statistically.

It’s possible that my typos and general English last night was even worse than I’d originally alluded to, but I’m fairly sure if you’d read my comment at #305 again (as well as various other comments I’ve made on this topic) you’d find that I was arguing against sparrow, and most emphatically not calling fraud of any kind.

Again, my point was that sparrow’s:

“Using the exact same argument as above – the data could be homogenized to the cooler, not the hotter temp.”

Basically demonstrates a lack of knowledge of what this whole subject has been about. For the reasons I mentioned. Take out the data pre-1940, and the homogenisation makes very little difference to the trend. Nick Stokes @#57 showed this better than I did, using the corresponding GISS data.

Thanks for giving the overall picture, but a little slower on the trigger next time please.

Not only is his bogus 500 kms not in the original paper, but when he says there is no station for that period within 500 kms, he’s wrong: according to the Excel file from the Aussie Climate data centre, the reference climate station at the Darwin Post Office — basically right next to the airport — covers the data from 1885-1941.

Hard to imagine how he could have missed that, since DARWIN AIRPORT and DARWIN POST OFFICE are right next to each other in the Excel file.

So it appears that Monckton’s comment was made in reference to some stats analysis made by Jeff Id who concluded that “three of four measurements show no significant global warming for the last 15 years and came very close to clearing the 17 year mark.”

Tamino concludes that “That does not mean that there’s been no warming trend in those 15 years — or in the last 10, or 9, or 8, or 7, or 6 years, or three and a half days. It only means that the trend cannot be established with statistical signficance. Of course, it’s another common denialist theme that “there’s been no warming.” This too is a fool’s argument; any such claims are only statements about the noise, not about the trend. It’s the trend that matters, and is cause for great concern, and there’s no evidence at all that the trend has reversed, or even slowed.”

When a temperature station is moved it should simply become a new station at that point in time, with a new set of siting errors (and accuracy if the sensor is upgraded). It has a different time window than it previous incarnation – it is a new data set. You don’t ‘homogenize’ neighboring stations into a mythical (and fictional) virtual station.

Basically what alarmists needed to do was not adjust data, they needed to create a thermal atmosphere model which would take into account siting characteristics both local and large. This would include distance from large bodies of water, altitude, latitude, etc. A three dimensional model that would explain why various stations have their unique siting profiles and temperature records. It would explain why temperatures near oceans fluctuate less than stations inland 100-200 miles. It would show how a global average increase of 1°C would result in a .6°C increase at high latitudes or altitudes. It would EXPLAIN the data variations in the measurements.

“But we don’t have this model. Alarmists cannot explain with accuracy why stations 10 miles apart show different temperature profiles each and every day of the year. So they pretend to know how to ‘adjust’ the data…”

It would explain why temperatures near oceans fluctuate less than stations inland 100-200 miles

Yeah, it’s really a scandal that scientists don’t understand why this is true. It’s also a pity that they don’t know why this is more true on the western coasts of continents in the northern hemisphere. It’s also a pity they haven’t given these regions a catchy name, like “Maritime Climates”.

El Gordo, I don’t doubt that you found the parody at Eli’s. I’m just not sure you understood that it was a parody.

You are, after all, one of the people here who repeatedly posts weather reports, as though snow in London in the middle of winter says something meaningful about global warming.

Then again, maybe you only do that as a way of highlighting the absurdity of denialists. Maybe it’s not that you don’t recognize parody when you see it. Maybe I don’t recognize parody. You’ve been spouting silliness for months, and here I was, reading your posts as though you actually meant what you were writing.

Eschenbach admits below that NASA GISS are down-playing climate change and that temperatures are rising!

Oh, and for what it’s worth, care to know the way that GISS deals with this problem? Well, they only use the Darwin data after 1963, a fine way of neatly avoiding the question … and also a fine way to throw away all of the inconveniently colder data prior to 1941

It seems that Eschenbach got his graph in a twist!

I spotted this while foolishly trying and failing to get a Denidiot to see that Eschenbach was lying.

Eschenbach may have got it wrong, but we won’t resolve it here and now with a definitive answer. Anyway, the real action is elsewhere.

In the mid 1990’s there were some in the environment movement who wanted to de-emphasize the link between AGW and extreme weather because it left them vulnerable.

But the movement failed to take their own advice and all extreme weather events were offered as further proof of global warming.

This New Year’s Eve a return of blizzards to North East US and the UK are predicted, which everyone will agree has nothing to do with global warming, but everything to do with climate change. Or will I be told that it’s weather and not climate?

The major population centers of the northern hemisphere are facing a cold spell not seen in a quarter century. ‘The first 15 days of the opening of the New Year will be the coldest, population weighted, north of 30 north world wide in over 25 years in my opinion’.

>*What if this winter in the UK is the coldest since 1962-63, is that weather or climate?*

What if one season in one country is the coldest since 1962? I’ll call your puny regional weather, and puny 1962 record and raise you with last month, the globally hottest November on record! A record set during an extended solar minima!

2009 started with a la nina, and one of the colder winters in recent years. We’re in a negative PDO, have gone from neutral to negative NAO and AO, are a couple years into a major extended solar minimum. We are ending the year with an el nino, but it isn’t very strong. And yet, despite all these conditions trending to colder temperatures and the only ‘warming’ condition being relatively weak, 2009 is going to end up being one of the few hottest years on record.

This is all weather, of course, but it is striking that even your very own cherry-picked weather contradicts the climate claims you are making, gordo.

“Oh look, here’s the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s high quality climate data for Darwin aiport.”

I looked and what did I see? According to the chart of the high quality data, Darwin Airport was founded within a year or so of the Wright Brothers first flight. Does this make Darwin the first airport in the world? How many other airports were built before 1910?

Even the AMB only rate Darwin data as “fair”. Perhaps that is because it is now classified as “urban” whereas, unless the airport was built on top of existing buildings, the site was most unlikely to have been urban previously. Could this explain the significant discontinuities in 1930 and later in 1940?

How much of the obvious temperature increase post-1940 can be traced to increased air travel. Would it not be interesting to see aircraft movements at Darwin Aiport plotted against the temperature anomaly histograms? Or would that be considered a spurious correlation?

I am sorry to rain on your parade but from what I can see it is the Australian BOM that has a credibility problem, not Willis. As long as the methods and justification used to make the changes are unavailable for review the temperature reconstructions will have to be considered invalid because science does not allow for a ‘trust us, our data and methods are OK,’ position. This should be an easy argument to settle. Make all data, metadata, and methods available for independent review and let the claims stand up to indepenent verification.

Science may not ideally operate on trust alone (although I’ve yet to meet the layman who wants to peer-review his own coronary bypass operation in situ), but neither can it function under an atmosphere of poison and baseless allegations of fraud. If we had to discard every single old set of historical records because someone didn’t want them to show what they showed and had a hissy fit over a missing notebook here or there then nothing would ever get done.

Eschenbach would have you believe that it is more likely that he has uncovered bogus data tampering than an outlier station who’s homogenisation has a much greater warming affect than average. Why are you taking him on trust?

Vangel @360: What was the BOM’s reply when you asked them for “the methods and justification used to make the changes”? How about when you requested all the “data, metadata, and methods”?
And what would you do with them if you got them?

Many on this thread have apparently not read what Eschenbach posted. It is especially troubling that some have been so irresponsible that they called him a liar based on a complete distortion of what he wrote. Even the starting premise of the discussion is questionable.

Anyone who spends any time reading blogs and internet posts must realize by now that you can’t trust anything anyone writes, even if you desperately want to agree with it. Please, to avoid pointless conflict in the future, do your due diligence, or don’t post.

Thank you for your comment. You are correct, I provided no facts because I thought the facts were apparent, and in any case everyone should do their own research and reach their own conclusions. Question everything, even if you are disposed to believe it.

To expand on my first post:

There were several posts by W.E. about the Darwin records. It is necessary to read them all in order to fairly judge them.

The graph “GHCN Raw and Adj. Temperatures Darwin Airport” was presented by W.E. to show the degree of adjustments made. He did not maintain that the unadjusted data was correct, as Lambert implies, thus the premise of this discussion appears to be false. In his (W.E.’s) discussion, he agreed that there was a step change made and an adjustment required. He questioned the reason for all the other adjustments. Perhaps you missed that post, which as I recall was a follow-up. There were other statements made by Lambert that need a line by line fact checking, but I’ll leave that to you.

See, this attitude of waltzing in pretending to be an independent thinker in a sea of sheep is going to do you no favours whatsoever here. Most people here have read the post in question, are well aware of what Eschenbach was trying to do and why he was wrong. If he has since corrected the errors in this post and apologised for the baseless accusation of fraud, feel free to link to it.

Lambert made no implication as to Eschenbach’s belief about the unadjusted data. He accurately recounts Eschenbach’s belief that the data was adjusted to create false warming. W.E. noted the reasons for homogenisation early on in the ‘smoking gun’ post, then promptly forgot about them. His suggested asjustment has no justification for it at all. He switched from absolute temps to anomolies half-way through his post so as to prevent any reasonable like-for-like comparison between data pre and post homogenisation. He offers no reasonable comparison with other stations available to him, suggesting strongly that he cherry-picked the station that would show the most radical upward adjustment (see Nick Stokes @57 to see effects on other stations).

And his conclusion after all this? Numbers were deliberately bumped up to show warming. This conclusion has absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it. The post was an absolute joke.

>*The graph “GHCN Raw and Adj. Temperatures Darwin Airport” was presented by W.E. to show the degree of adjustments made. He did not maintain that the unadjusted data was correct, as Lambert implies, thus the premise of this discussion appears to be false.*

Did Tim imply that Willis Eschenbach “maintain[ed] that the unadjusted data was correct” and was this the premise of Tim’s post?

No, the premise was that Eschenbach claims that for Darwin “the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling”.

And that: Eschenbach, simply declares the NOAA’s adjustments “blatantly bogus” that created a “false warming”.*

Hence I do not accept the characterization of your criticism as you currently state it.

>*Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style … they are indisputable evidence that the “homogenized” data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.*

Julian can you show us where this claim is justified?

This is associated with an attempt to claim the global warming is an artifact of bad homogenization. Yet global warming from GHCN v2 is from a -0.3 deg anomaly (1880) to a +0.7 deg anomaly at present. This is virtually the same warming as GHCN v3. You [have to go to 3 decimal places](http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/ghcn-version-3-beta/) to find a difference over this 130 year period.

Willis like Watts can’t see the wood for the trees. They are focusing on possible imperfections that don’t significantly change the magnitude of warming.

And because the data does not fit their narrative they over reach can make unsupportable claims about a unjustified systematic bias that is where the data is supposedly:

>*changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.*